User talk:Ianmacm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

David Frost[edit]

My edit on David Frost is sourced from Wikipedia itself. Would you mind putting the into back plerase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 (talkcontribs) 21:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is really notable enough for a mention in the "American career from 1968 to 1980" section, as it was not a major part of his career and did not garner significant and lasting media attention (eg none of his obituaries mentioned this). It is mentioned at Louis_Armstrong#Death where it is more on topic.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Streisand effect[edit]

Why did you revert my cited addition to Streisand effect? Your edit comment makes no sense. My addition was unrelated to the Robert Peston story. I'd expect better behaviour from an experienced editor. --Ef80 (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the media coverage of this is traced back to Robert Peston's article, and he does not say that it is an example of the Streisand effect. The consensus at Talk:Streisand effect is not to include new examples (the list is too long already) unless the sourcing specifically says that it is an example of the effect. There are also WP:BLP issues here. A casual reader of this edit might get the impression that O'Neal actually did file the takedown request himself, something that Peston did not claim in his article, and later backtracked on in the 22:50 update at the bottom of the article. *If* O'Neal did file this takedown request, then he deserves all of the criticism that he gets, IMHO. If it turns out that he did not file the request, it is going to look like a storm in a teacup and an example of the dangers of getting hold of the wrong end of the stick over things.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
But my addition had nothing to do with O'Neil. It concerned minor court reports (in this case a £200 shoplifting conviction from 2006) receiving considerably greater publicity as a result of a takedown request and a newspaper's exposure of this. This is a classic Streisand effect. Please read the citation. --Ef80 (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It was User:PhilHibbs who first added the Stanley O'Neal material in this edit, so I apologise for the confusion. This definitely should not be included as an example of the effect unless more is known. The material that you added about the Oxford shoplifting case in this edit is cited to an Oxford Mail story which again does not mention the Streisand effect by name. It is interesting, and any half-smart lawyer would have warned of the danger of this happening. I think that this is worth mentioning and would be more on topic in Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González.--13:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The best laugh I have had all day is here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I still think the Google material is relevant and should be included, but I don't feel strongly enough to carry on pushing. --Ef80 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the Oxford Mail story does not say "This is an example of the Streisand effect" (although it passes the WP:DUCK test for this with flying colours). I did add this as an external link in Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González because it is one of the first confirmed cases where removal has occurred. It also highlights the likely consequences of doing this, which is that the news organisation concerned will say "F*** you, mate" and reprint the material immediately. This is undoubtedly important for anyone considering making a takedown request of this nature.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rolf Harris: New Allegations "double haha"[edit]

As you appear to be an arbiter of discussion of sexual abuse (you appear on every page whenever a fresh allegation or conviction is under discussion), may I ask whether you feel that this discussion is appropriate? It concerns me that the WP editors in these cases appear invariably to be men. This discussion is an example of why I feel that most male WP contributors are particularly poorly qualified to be editing such articles at all. Do you get where I'm coming from?

Alrewas (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is some crystalballery (ie WP:CRYSTAL) here. We don't know if he will face further charges (at the time of writing, he hasn't even been sentenced on the existing charges). The jokey tone in some of the comments is inappropriate and starting to wander off into WP:NOTAFORUM territory.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Not meaning to disagree or be disagreeable, but I would point out that Alrewas should be cautious about assuming to know the gender of the editors participating in a discussion based exclusively (I assume) on their Wikipedia usernames. More to the point, though, I also did find the expressions of levity in this discussion a bit of a sour note. Dwpaul Talk 17:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Very sorry if I caused offence by adding the four letters "Haha" in response to a rather contrived joke from Pete. I did follow it up with what I thought were serious points about Harris's skills and what he might expect as punishment. But I feel we're missing the point here. I'm sure that the intention, however misguided, is to poke fun at Harris and to ridicule his hypocrisy. I'd like to make it clear that by sharing jokes about Harris, as with jokes about the monster that was Jimmy Savile, I do not in some way condone or approve of sexual abuse of any kind, whoever is the victim. I am not laughing at the abuse of women or children. In fact, think it's a little simplistic to suggest that is the case. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The appropriate response to that is probably to say that, whatever your intention, Talk pages of Wikipedia articles (particularly biographical articles, where WP:BLP still applies) should not be used to poke fun at the article's subject and/or ridicule his or her hypocrisy. Dwpaul Talk 18:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure that's very appropriate. I'd accept the charge of minor BLP infringement in discussing a convicted criminal. But not one of "laughing at child abuse". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rolf Harris: "garbage spouted" in "that" trial.[edit]

Thank you. Yet you've let this section stand, leaving us with these offerings-:

"For the record I don't believe any of the garbage that was spouted in that trial . . . "

"Yes, I think he has been stitched up and I don't personally believe he's been any more inappropriate than Michael Jackson."

The male WP contributors who edit sexual abuse articles give me no indication of accepting how serious these offences are. That now puts them at odds even with the vast majority of UK press coverage. That's worrying, as it means that WP is going out on a limb.

I don't appreciate either the fact that the men concerned, rather than accepting their first error, have attempted to turn this into criticism of me. Unlike the men who creepily descend upon these articles to attempt to diminish the severity of the offences, I have a lot of experience of these matters and am well qualified to comment.Alrewas (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, I am *very* tolerant with talk pages. However, I have to agree that this section has also wandered off into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. I've left a note explaining this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And let's be very clear: besides being WP:NOTAFORUM, it's an allegation that prosecution witnesses have committed perjury. Persons making such allegations need to present evidence and they need to do so through the police, not on here. Anybody concerned about such allegations against prosecution witnesses appearing here, can express their concerns to Slater & Gordon solicitors, whose specialist abuse team has worked closely with Yewtree witnessses. Alrewas (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is this discussion taking place on Ianmacm's talk page? As far as I can make out, he isn't involved at all. Surely these comments belong on the Harris talk page if they're relevant to WP at all. --Ef80 (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ianmacm is a guardian, self-appointed or otherwise, of articles dealing with child abuse issues. It's therefore totally fitting that he is aware of the very serious concerns that I have raised. I raised the issue of jocundity on the Talk page to begin with, but was ignored. As men laughing about sexual abuse, and men accusing the prosecution witnesses of having "spouted rubbish" are matters to be dealt with urgently, it's utterly fitting that I contacted Ianmacm here.Alrewas (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Yet you've let this section stand, leaving us with these offerings-:" Sorry?? Ianmacm's left them? Is that a Talk Page that he is in some way "responsible" for policing? He may do a lot of good editing on that article. He may make wise and valued contributions on that Talk Page. But does that mean he somehow has to take some blame for leaving other editor's indiscretions untouched? Or is he guilty by default because, we assume from his user name, he's a man? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Let me get this quite clear. So you are accusing me of "laughing about sexual abuse"? Yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The relevant policy is WP:TPO. I hatted the "New allegations" section because it had gone over the line with some of the comments, but left the "Rewrite needed" section with a note about WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm not a "guardian, self-appointed or otherwise" of any talk page, but did think that some of the comments in these sections had lost sight of the main purpose of a talk page, which is to discuss improvements to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you have acted exactly in line with policy, Ianmacm. Admin tools are not required for these actions and if another editor feels strongly enough that a set of comments should be hatted, it is up to them to do so and face any consequences from the original commenters. I think we have shades of grey here, not black and white certainties. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
"As men laughing about sexual abuse, and men accusing the prosecution witnesses of having 'spouted rubbish'". This user has a habit of positioning their comments in this way. On the Max Clifford talk page I've pointed out to them that (a) making assumptions on gender is foolish if based on pseudonymous user names (b) it's also a crude and naive gender sterotype to posit that certain edits have been made because the editor is male (c) to do so regularly (as they appear to be doing) in WP terms is potentially WP:NPA. This user seems to be at these articles to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm also unclear about the connection of this editor with "Slater and Gordon Lawyers, London." Are the comments on the Talk Page left with the knowledge of that firm or with their express permission? Is the editor acting on their behalf in some way? I would have thought that openly naming any legal party, acting for either defendant or claimant, was a little off topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the only thing on the Rolf Harris talk page that I thought really deserved hatting was the Les Patterson comment. A certain amount of banter on a talk page is OK, but by this stage the thread was well off-topic. On the question of Rolf Harris and his guilt or otherwise, Wikipedia is as ever limited to what the courts and reliable sources have said. It is interesting that there has been a fair amount of commentary online saying that he was probably no worse than Michael Jackson, but at the end of the day Harris was found guilty by a jury that heard all of the evidence. I also agree that the reference to Slater and Gordon Lawyers is itself somewhat off-topic.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

All of you: please stop harassing me. Now.Alrewas (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ian (nobody else - I contacted Ian here to speak to him privately): "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page." How is the clear implication that prosecution witnesses (whose evidence has just convicted) were "spouting rubbish," not an example of contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced? Or are women giving evidence of sexual abuse not deemed to be "living persons"? Alrewas (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Harassing" you! Don't be ridiculous. You posted on a Wikipedia talk page: this is not private communication - anyone can and will respond. We have email for private communication. If IanMacm hasn't enabled his email facility then, frankly, you are not able to communicate with him privately via Wikipedia. I also notice that after complaining that no one responded to your post on the Max Clifford talk page, when I did respond you obviously didn't like it as you've now ignored it. DeCausa (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Police investigations[edit]

Just a request for your views. On the BBC last night there was a report on the various ongoing child abuse investigations, which referred to Operation Mapperton in Tower Hamlets and Essex - mentioned here, and there are other mentions on blogs. We don't have an article on it, and I can't find it mentioned in any articles here. Looking into it a bit further I came across this site, which lists a whole slew of investigations, some of which may be notable, either individually or in total. I don't suggest we use that site itself, but some of its links might be useful. Should we be covering these investigations in some way - perhaps in a single overview article? I'm undecided and in many ways don't want to lead on this, but would appreciate your opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is similar to the North Wales child abuse scandal; I hadn't come across Operation Mapperton before. There are now numerous claims of historic sexual abuse, such as the one at Westminster.[1] Personally, I don't believe in the massive conspiracy and cover-up theories in the blogs, and believe that the real problem is that incidents of this kind were never properly reported and investigated in those days. Operation Mapperton does not seem to meet WP:GNG for its own article at the moment, but it could be mentioned in another article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks as though this will be the next story needing its own article, so if appropriate they can perhaps be covered in that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Archimedes Intro[edit]

Hey, could you please clarify some of your edits to the Archimedes intro. I was mainly concerned with streamlining the introductory paragraph, and moving the more important material (mathematics, then physics, then engineering plus the dubious siege engines) to the start of the intro, but you have reverted these changes.

You also removed a number of incidental edits I made about specific quotations and events, as any potentially apocryphal information should not be in the intro. I do not necessarily disagree with this principle (though it does not seem to be universal, I checked the Pythagoras article for instance and there is reference in the introduction to his theorem despite there being no historical evidence of his discovering it), but you then moved a comment you called apocryphal about him being "credited with building siege weapons" to the very first paragraph, thus taking priority even over his mathematical work, which seems to violate the principle.

I also edited the claim that he considered the "theorem" - although it is more of an illustration of a number of theorems - about the sphere in the cylinder to be his "greatest achievement", as I considered this dubious and there was no citation. Do you know of any citations? If not I'll remove the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.62.241 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I've assumed that this refers to the edits by User:Denziloe. The phrase "well known to popular imagination for his anecdotal cry of "eureka!" ("I've got it!") upon solving a physical puzzle" [2] is unencyclopedic and hard to prove. It is hard to say what the popular imagination is, although the "Eureka!" story is undoubtedly well known. The only known works of Archimedes are his mathematical writings. All of the machines and other quotations attributed to him are apocryphal and the work of much later authors. Unlike some encyclopedia articles about Archimedes, this article has tried to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and has not stated or implied that any of the things that Roman writers said about Archimedes are true. At one point the WP:LEAD had been expanded to six paragraphs.[3] This is not recommended by WP:LEAD and I felt that it had to be reverted because Archimedes is a Featured Article and needs to have a high level of compliance with the recommended guidelines. The WP:LEAD is one of the trickiest sections of the article to write, as it is the first thing that people read and changes to it should reflect WP:CONSENSUS. If you posted suggested changes here or on the talk page, we could work towards a consensus version.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand and accept all of those comments, but they were not what I was asking about. Please reread my queries; bulletpointed they concerned,
- The special presence and prominence of the "siege engine" claims in the introduction, when they are claimed by the same historians who recorded the "Eurkea" and "move the Earth" claims which were deemed too unreliable for the intro
- The claim that his tomb bore a sphere inscribed in a cylinder, and that he considered this to be his single "greatest discovery". The latter seems unverifiable, and seems unnecessary; the tomb should be left to speak for itself. And second, the only direct historical account of the tomb seems to be that of Cicero, who describes "a little column just visible above the scrub: it was surmounted by a sphere and a cylinder". It is hard to see how a physical sphere could be inscribed within a cylinder, so it seems that Cicero is describing the objects as separate.
I'll start working on a version of the intro which accommodates the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.62.241 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been a bit busy today, but looked out the sourcing on Archimedes' tomb, which is here. The full text of Plutarch's Parallel Lives is here, with the tomb of Archimedes in Part 17. Archimedes is said to have asked for this to be included as part of his tomb, which is not quite thing as saying that he considered it to be his greatest mathematical achievement. He may well have done, but that is not what the sourcing says. Also, I wouldn't object to moving the siege engine material as long as the recommended four paragraph structure was maintained.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)